|This user is, of their own volition, no longer very active on Wikimedia Commons.
This is not indicative of breaking any Wikimedia policies.
Strange file names; one seems a comment on the otherEdit
Hi Natuur12, what would you do when you encounter the file name Romp of Otters. Sea Otter Mom with NOT Two Pups but ONE sea-otter-mom-and-pup-4-16-07 2 (462500055).jpg and then find the same image is also present as Four sea otters.JPG (probably uploaded by someone who lost the ability to count). It seems the dispute on what is depicted took place outside Commons (probably on Flickr) but what was the use of copying a duplicate file with such a strange name to our project? Most likely a bot was responsible, but now I noticed this, we can probably do some proper thinking about it. Wikiklaas (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Wikiklaas,
- I noticed your message but looking into this will take some time. I'll try to do so tomorrow or Sunday. Natuur12 (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems that the number of pups is disputed. I suspect that the file name at Flickr was changed after there was a debate about how many sea otter pups are present which lead to a double upload. The most recent upload has to be redirected to the old upload. Part of the debate about how many pups are present is visible via the comment section of the file page at Flickr. Unfortunate not all information is present.
They did consult a biologists specialising in sea otters. The expert is named Michael Harris and allegedly stated the following: I agree. I see 3 independent and 1 dependent (pup) in this image. In my opinion we should follow the observation made by the expert. There is one but, we don’t know the exact question which was send to the expert. My suggestion would be to rename the file of the oldest upload so that this reflects the expert’s observation and that the file page is updated. Natuur12 (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking notice. I also think we should agree with the specialist, but we should not allow file names that are merely commenting on other files: comments should be made on talk pages; as a result, file names might be changed. It is only now, by the way, that I noticed there are indeed four animals in the picture, so the file name is at least correct, the description can go where it should be, on the description page. I think redirecting the newer name to the old one is a good solution. Wikiklaas (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Wikiklaas: I noticed that Four sea otters.JPG isn’t the original. The uploader modified the file before uploading it to Wikimedia Commons. This also explains why the license had to be reviewed by a human instead of the bot. I renamed Romp of Otters. Sea Otter Mom with NOT Two Pups but ONE sea-otter-mom-and-pup-4-16-07 2 (462500055) and I made clear that this is the original version from Flickr and that Four sea otters is a modified version. Four sea otters being a modified file also explains why the file was uploaded twice. Natuur12 (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Xonotic screenshots restored illegitimatelyEdit
Here we go again...
- File:Xonotic Game Play - Silent Siege.jpg
- File:Xonotic gameplay - Newtonian Nightmare.jpg
- File:Xonotic Game Play - Xoylent (image 3).jpg
You need to offer the source code or else these need to be deleted again. Please read the license GPLv2+ conditions. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 17:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Also User:Jeff G's comment was inexcusable, as I've previously mentioned elsewhere on Commons. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 17:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Off-topic accessibility tip: Using unordered lists and Template:Author in the description for multiple authors is preferable. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 17:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Dear 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1,
- This is not how the community has interpreted the license. You might be right, you might be wrong but going after individual print screens isn't the right course of action. A general debate in com:VPC. If you are right this effects almost all print screens released under this license. Wouldn't it make more sense to find consensus instead of having a major debate over some print screens?
Would it be enough for me to link you to the following literature, if you doubt my arguments?
- A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance. Software Freedom Law Center. Retrieved on 2017-09-15.
- II A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance. copyleft.org. Retrieved on 2017-09-15.
- Migrated/GPL Enforcement Cases. Free Software Foundation Europe. Retrieved on 2017-09-15.
- Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses. The GNU Project. Retrieved on 2017-09-15.
Especially the In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too? part in the GPL FAQ. That I may have previously inaccurately represented in few cases.
Adding a link to the repository would be an improvement, but may not exactly satisfy the corresponding source code requirement and not necessarily the completeness, which I've expressed to be a burden of proof on the uploader.
Yes, I'd love to bring it to a wider attention at COM:VP/C. There's a related thing going on right now at COM:VP about license terminations. There's an RFC about local copies of GNU licenses ongoing at Template talk:GPLv2+ that I created earlier today. At smaller scale, I have already asked COM:VP/C for help about GNU license violations at larger scale three times. User:Gazebo has previously agreed with me there to be an issue, twice on seperate issues: Once on Inkscape (GPL) and once on some LGPL toolkit.
There's the chicken-and-egg problem too: An user at COM/VP asked if this has happened on Commons before, not doubting that it has happened outside of Commons. Seeing how the undeletion request was approved by you is really upsetting and a setback for that goal. I lack social skills and ability to express the wider issue to the community. If you believe I'm right, would you please consider helping? I'd love to have a more in-depth conversation with someone understanding. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 17:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Regarding the network access to source link once again, only under GPLv3+ without a written offer or (physical) medium of distribution (which I also had previously replaced a GPLv2+ tag with). 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 18:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention: There's no remaining right to distribute these three screenshots under GPLv2 without OTRS verification, per automatic termination provisions. GPLv3+ would still (theoretically) have a way to cure. Thus I find the change of license tags to GPLv2+ by you have also been incorrect (but then again, you're also not the copyright holder). Unless there's arguing for threshold of originality, which I'd say has been exceeded. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 21:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I’m not an expert on software licenses so I doubt that I will be of much help with establishing a new consensus or policy. And please realise that admins merely follow the communities interpretation of licenses, copyright law etc.
You say that you lack the social skills to express the wider issue. One of the problems seems to be that you give your personal interpretation. Aren’t there copyright experts who have blogged about this topic? Are there legal scholars who have published about this? It might also work if you stick your posts to an minimum when you initiate a proposal. People aren’t going to comment if the initiator is responding to everyone.
I added a link to the library to the file pages. If you still believe the files should be deleted, feel free to start a regular deletion request. Though I doubt that raising DR’s will help your cause because this could antagonise users even more.
About license terminations. Our standard practice is to fix uploads instead of deleting them and letting someone else re-upload them. I do find this practice a bit odd (but follow our standard practices anyways) but on the other hand. Is it really our job to worry about license breeches? In my opinion that is something for the copyright holder to worry about. Natuur12 (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Please follow the normal procedureEdit
Natuur12, there's a problem with your decision to keep this file. This doesn't respect the right procedure. The picture is redundant and redundant files can be nominated for deletion. Your decision didn't take in consideration this paramater and seems to invoke an illegitimate reason. In that case, this is a complex problem. Kindly reconsiderate the issue. - Basile Morin (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Basile Morin,
- The file we are talking about is a quality image which has been around since 2012. Deleting the image could break external usage or break attribution elsewhere. About following the correct procedure. The procedure states the following ‘’’ In general’’ , requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days. (emphasis mine) This implies that there are exceptions to the 7 days rule of the thump. Examples are vandalism or copyright violations but also acts of sheer vengeance. You ended up in a conflict with Yann and during this conflict you nominated a quality image uploaded by him for deletion using a dishonest reasoning. (Forgetting to mention that both files are quality images isn’t merely a small oversight making your deletion statement misleading.) Btw, that you have a conflict with Yann doesn’t make the DR complex. Natuur12 (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Firstly, there are 2 allegedly "quality" images really too much identical, and that makes the case even more damaging, because Wikimedia gets overloaded from such redundant files. Honestly, Natuur12, assume good faith and tell me what distinguishes these two images. In my opinion nothing, just one is too much, but you closed the debate without consensus, with just a very poor participation.
- Secondly, what about this "revenge DR" (as you call it) ? Once again, assume good faith and explain me the reason for nominating the file : "Keeping this, we are looking for the stick to be beaten", it's stated ! Incredible. But this discussion will you close it also early and write "Revenge DR,. DR is clearly invalid", will you ? No you won't, even if it's truth. - Basile Morin (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)